46 N.Y. 119, Lowry v. Inman

Citation:46 N.Y. 119
Party Name:WILLIAM M. LOWRY et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM H. INMAN, Respondent.
Case Date:September 02, 1871
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 119

46 N.Y. 119

WILLIAM M. LOWRY et al., Appellants,

v.

WILLIAM H. INMAN, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

September 2, 1871

         Argued Jun. 7, 1871.

Page 120

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 121

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 122

         COUNSEL

         F. C. Barlow, for the appellants. That the remedy given by statute must be as broad as the right; otherwise it is not exclusive. ( Buckford v. Hood, 7 Term R., 620; Smith v. Lockwood, 13 Barb., 217; Atwood v. R. I. A. Bank, 1 R. I., 376; Ex parte Van Riper, 20 Wend., 616.) The liability exists at common-law. ( Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend., 338; Moss v. Oakley, 2 Hill, 265, 269; Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Hill, 188; Harger v. McCulloughs, 2 Denio, 119, 123; Paine v. Stewart, 33 Conn., 516, 530; Abbott v. Aspinwall, 26 Barb., 207; Merchants' Bank v. Bliss, 35 N.Y. 414; President of Waterford Co. v. The People, 9 Barb., 172; Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns., 175; Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 N.Y. , 15; Moss v. Averill, 10 Id., 459; Corning v. McCullough, 1 Comst., 47; Story v. Furman, 25 N.Y. 221.) The right being a common-law one, the remedy should be also; and the creditor is not confined to the statutory remedy, at least in this State. ( Ibbotson v. Poughkeepsie Bank, 24 Wend., 473; Dauchy v. Brown, 24 Vt., 205, 206; Smith v. Spinola, 2 Johns., 199; Whitmore v. Adams, 2 Cow., 632; Hinkley v. Mareau, 3 Mason, 90; Titus v. Hobart, 5 Id., 378; Story Confl. Laws, § § 570, 571; De La Vega v. Viana, 1 Barn. & Adol., 288.) Defendant is estopped by the words on the bills. ( Atwood v. Agricultural Bank, 1 R. I., 376.) Defendant bound by the judgment against the bank. ( Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend., 159; Becquet v. McCarthy, 2 B. & A., 951; Douglas v. Forest, 4 Bing., 702, 703; Sumner v. Marcy, 3 M. & W., 115;

Page 123

2 Phill. Ev., 200-202, note; Valer v. Dumesque, 4 Exch., 303; Marcy v. Clark, 17 Mass., 333; Brewer v. Gloucester, 14 Id., 216; McRae v. Mattoon, 13 Pick., 53; Kelsall v. Marshall, 1 C. B., N. S., 241; Bank of A. v. Hanling, 9 C. B., 687.)The tendency of the courts is to amplify remedies. ( Russell v. Smith, 9 M. & W., 818.)

         John H. Reynolds, for respondent. That respondent is not a party to the judgment in Georgia, and therefore is not bound. (Brooms Comm., 263, ed. 1864, De Grey, C. J., in Duchess of Kingston's Case, 2 Smith's Leading Cases, 573, note; Mills v. Duryee, Buller's Nisi Prius, 233; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 2 American Leading Cases, 790, et seq.; Green v. Sarmiento, 1 Peters, C. C. R., 74; Whitman v. Cox, 26 Maine, 339.) It was a proceeding in rem, and has no extra territorial effect. ( Bates v. Delavan, 5 Paige Ch. R., 299; Cunningham v. Pell, 5 Paige Ch. R., 611; Story's Confl. of Laws, § § 322, 328, 432, 575, 539, 546, 547; De Witt v. Burnett, 3 Barb., 89; Broom's Maxims, "audi alteram partem," 80; Westlake's Private Inter. Law, Art., 388; Buchanan v. Rucker, 1 Camp, N. P. R., 67; 2 Cowen & Hill's Phillips on Evidence, pg 203, note 306; 1 Green's Ev. §§ 522, 523, 541; Story on Confl. of Laws, § § 539, 546, 547, 586-590; 8 Cowen R., 311; Cowen & Hill's Phillips on Ev., supra; 2 Smith's Leading Cases, 573, notes.) The section of the charter referred to, is in derogation of the common-law, and will be restrained within its literal import. (Sedgwick on Stat. and Const. Law, 313, 319, 147, 351; Bussing v. Bushnell, 6 Hill, 382; Benjamin v. Benjamin, 1 Seld., 383; Allen v. Miller, 17 Wend., 202; McGuen v. Regan, 2 Wheaton, 25; Bloom v. Bundick, 1 Hill, 130; Bigelow v. Stearns, 19 John's, 39; Powell v. Tuttle, 31 Coms., 396; Olmstead v. Elder, 1 Seld., 144; Sherwood v. Reade, 7 Hill, 431; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheaton, 119; Jackson v. Esty, 7 Wend., 148; Parker v. Overman, 18 How., U.S. 137; Garrison v. Howe, 17 N.Y. 464; Bird v. Haydon, 2 Abb., N. S., 66; People v. Lambier, 5 Denio, 9; Bennet v. Ward, 3 Cai., 259;

Page 124

McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N.Y. 593; Rathbun v. Acker, 18 Barb., 393; B. and U. R. R. Co. v. Robins, 22 Barb., 662.)In no view does the section impose an individual liability. (Broom's Maxims, 514, 582, Marg., 415; 2 Bl. Com., 380; Lane v. Morris, 10 Georgia R., 168; Patterson v. Baker, 50 Barb., 432; Lane v. Thornton, 11 Georgia R., 497.) Section 18 can ground no action before a foreign tribunal. ( Ferusson v. Fyffe, 8 Cl. & Fin., 121; Story's Confl. of Laws, Ch., 14, § § 556-558; 2 Kent's Comm., 559, ed. 1866; Broom's Comm., 45, 46; Wheaton's Inter., Law, 139; Westlake Private Inter. Law, Art., 468, Art., 166; Watrip v. Pierce, 35 N. H., 582; Titus v. Hobart, 5 Mason, 379; Pickering v. Fisk, 6 Verm., 102; Donn v. Lippmann, 5 Cl. &...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP